Supremes Reverse Coa On King & Kolonek

[Dr. Bob]

I do believe, as peanutbutter said, that you are well outside of your expertise on this subject.

 

Well then let's just leave it to lawyers then.

 

Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

This was a serious question I wasn't being factitious.

 

I am a caregiver, my patients paperwork has not been completed by the state, it has been over 60 days but no record of me being the patients caregiver in the registry. I am arrested and in their eyes an unregistered caregiver if they were to rely on the state system registry. Is it 4 or section 8?

 

To add to this all paperwork is filed, everything should be legit, But if they call Lara or whoever it is they call, I would not be registered yet because the patients paperwork has not gone through and even the patient will not show up in the registry yet.

Edited June 1, 2012 by restlesslegs

[Dr. Bob]

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

[peanutbutter]

There are certain cases where section 8 could be used, case in point diseases that don't go away.

 

I am a caregiver, my patients paperwork has not been completed by the state, it has been over 60 days but no record of me being the patients caregiver in the registry. I am arrested and in their eyes an unregistered caregiver if they were to rely on the state system registry. Is it 4 or section 8?

 

You use section 8 in court.

 

You use section 4 before court.

[restlesslegs]

Thank you.

[peanutbutter]

We "play before an audience" as someone pointed out.

 

One part that we play before is leo and court officials.

 

They will try to prove us wrong.

 

When we adapt the most restrictive view, that is the STARTING point they will work from.

 

Not only are the most conservative views needed here. So are the most liberal.

 

ANYTHING we consed will be used against us ..

Edited June 1, 2012 by peanutbutter

[GregS]

This ends the necessity to wait more than one day for a card.

Edited June 1, 2012 by GregS

[GregS]

What are you implying about 'special arrangement for court appearances'? I didn't set it up, he did because he has worked specifically with cases where the certification paperwork was used in a case and there was no attempt to participate in the registry.

 

To answer your questions, why don't you head over to this thread and get the answers you need from a lawyer.

 

http://michiganmedic...-8/page__st__20

 

You will see rather quickly what the truth is.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Special arrangement is intended to indicate that a lawyer who is a patient can be paid in useable marijuana by me, his primary caregiver, for required court appearances and associated legal work. Just sayin'.

Edited June 1, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

This ends the necessity to wait more than one day for a card.

 

Care to explain that one beyond what was said about using the AD from the time seen by the doc to the end of the 21 day waiting period...ie that you could be arrested but at least had a chance to use the section 8 defense?

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Special arrangement is intended to indicate that a lawyer who is a patient can be paid in useable marijuana by me, his primary caregiver, for required court appearances and associated legal work. Just sayin'.

 

Completely out of context to the discussion but what you do is your business. I don't take chickens or cases of beer for my professional services. And paying someone with marijuana just strikes me as a bit strange.

[GregS]

Care to explain that one beyond what was said about using the AD from the time seen by the doc to the end of the 21 day waiting period...ie that you could be arrested but at least had a chance to use the section 8 defense?

 

Dr. Bob

 

Not necessary. You have it right.

[+Annnie]

This is a great victory. But what is the victory?

1. If you have a card, and are following the law, you cannot be arrested.
   
2. If you have a card, and are suspected of violating the law, you can be arrested, and this decision confirms your ability to use the Section 8 defense (again, paraphrased)
   
3. If you don't have a card (by this I mean the 21 days hasn't elapsed but have been seen by the doc), you can use the Section 8 defense to justify your violation.
   
4. If you haven't seen the doc prior to the raid, you can't use the defense (the before the Act became effective doesn't really apply to folks having new issues in 2012).
   

Point one is self explainatory.

Point two comes into play when you have small errors, like an unlocked front door, or have 14 plants because you are a cancer patient using simpson oil and NEED that many to keep your supply. You are violating the Act, you can claim patient status, and try and get the jury to agree you need 14 plants. But you still go to court. The jury decides the validity of your story, but they get to hear it.

Point three is same pretty much as point two, Point four is self explainatory.

 

Problems and misconceptions.

 

Just having a card does not mean you can do what you want. You can't violate the basic provisions of the act and expect the police to ignore the violation. You can't grow in your front yard, you can't have 2 pounds, nothing has changed with that.. You can just defend yourself a little better, and it is up to the jury to buy that defense.

 

Getting the certification but refusing to participate in the registry means you will have to defend yourself if arrested, even if you were fully compliant with the Act (see point three). It is absurd to think that by refusing to participate in the registry you somehow have more rights than someone who does. If a registered patient has to re-register annually, why on Earth would anyone assume someone who doesn't register would have an unlimited certification? Perhaps an actual lawyer might be able to answer as to how the courts generally deal with this type of situation. My non-lawyer opinion is that they would view it as the same as a registration- annual. The reason for this is the caregiver change form. There is technically NO waiting period on the change form, no 21 days. It is not addressed in the Act or the Rules. Speaking with attorneys they mentioned a concept called construction, similar activities within an act are assumed to be enforced in a similar way, and most likely they would require a 21 day waiting period on the change form if the issue went to court. Same with certified patients that elect not to participate in the registry, and that is the way a lawyer I know handles his unregistered card.

 

The information is presented as a non-legal opinion. If it makes sense to you, use it when you decide what you do. I know what I would do if I wanted to be safe.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I just want to point out about NUMBER 1.. That is not an absolute.. Many many ppl have been arrested, Prosecuted and faced harsh penalties ,denied rights and priviledges even when they had their cards and were in full compliance..

[Fat Freddy]

We could not have ask for anything better. Dang I am proud of the Sct. Good common sense prevails.

[bobandtorey]

A very, very good ruling for us. I was able to deliver good news to my patient today, and it was a noticeable relief when I told him the Supreme Court heavily considered the ballot language in making the decisions on meaning.

so will this help us in court?

[Dr. Bob]

I just want to point out about NUMBER 1.. That is not an absolute.. Many many ppl have been arrested, Prosecuted and faced harsh penalties ,denied rights and priviledges even when they had their cards and were in full compliance..

 

Folks that are in full, unquestioned compliance don't have problems. In general there is some question of a violation, even a small one innocently made, required to get the arrest warrant. Probable cause must exist, even if we don't agree it is something illegal. This is the difference between only doing things viewed as clearly allowed by the courts vs what we think is allowed. The good news is that even with so called 'innocent errors' the defense is there now thanks to the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Annnie]

Folks that are in full, unquestioned compliance don't have problems. In general there is some question of a violation, even a small one innocently made, required to get the arrest warrant. Probable cause must exist, even if we don't agree it is something illegal. This is the difference between only doing things viewed as clearly allowed by the courts vs what we think is allowed. The good news is that even with so called 'innocent errors' the defense is there now thanks to the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob

Folks that are in full, unquestioned compliance don't have problems. In general there is some question of a violation, even a small one innocently made, required to get the arrest warrant. Probable cause must exist, even if we don't agree it is something illegal. This is the difference between only doing things viewed as clearly allowed by the courts vs what we think is allowed. The good news is that even with so called 'innocent errors' the defense is there now thanks to the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Sorry i am not wrong about that.. PPL in full compliance have been arrested, siezed from, prosecuted denied their rights and priviledges.. AND I WILL NOT LET YOU SAY IT AS AN ABSOLUTE>.. cause you are wrong..

[Dr. Bob]

Ok, Annie, Fine, I am sure there are examples that can be cited of people who crossed every t, dotted every i, had 12 plants and 12 plants only in a locked, enclosed facility, had less that 2.5 ounces on hand that were simply harassed. I am aware of people that were cited with clearly legal paperwork. But there was always a catch. The cop didn't think the paperwork was real, a door was left unlocked, or something that was viewed as probable cause by the cop or the court.

 

I am sure the folks at the FM believe with all their hearts they are in full compliance. I believe that most of the folks posting here that ran into issues believed in their hearts they were fully compliant. But looking back, think if there is something you can think of.

 

Dr. Bob

[trix]

Sorry i am not wrong about that.. PPL in full compliance have been arrested, siezed from, prosecuted denied their rights and priviledges.. AND I WILL NOT LET YOU SAY IT AS AN ABSOLUTE>.. cause you are wrong..

 

~Raises hand, ONLY thing I did wrong was call the police for help. Other than that I was 100% compliant dragged though court and dismissed after a full year and several long months of court dates and drug testing.

 

The ONLY thing I did wrong was trust the police to help me during a home invasion... EDUCATE LAW ENFORCMENT and alot of issues will go away. There was not one single thing that I was doing wrong with in the law, not one. I had 12 plants, no clones, not even a roach to smoke in my home.. I just called for help that was the issue. The problem is and was the police they had no education on how to handle my situation, I was the victim of a crime, I called for help and was nearly a convicted felon that was going to do 2-4 yrs manditory in prison for MY home being robbed!!!, POLICE MUST BE EDUCATED ASAP. I had my card, I had my stuff stapled to the door of my grow room, my plants were all labeled and dated from the D.O.B of each plant. I was compliant 100% some may say I may have been compliant but I'm justa idiot for involving the police, But I had just came home and discovered my life was just turned into a tragedy within seconds. The police let the robber go free and arrested me.. How did I break a law? Read my case file The judge agreed I was not in violation of anything in the mmmp.

 

People do things everyday that can get you arrested, it's up to the POLICE whether you will be spending the night in jail at the time when they arrive on scene. Not the Judge, not a lawyer, not a neighbor. It is the police that are the first line of violations of our rights under the act. THEY MUST BE 1ST IN LINE TO BE EDUCATED ON THE LAW. (IMO) The old timers still working the beat are the ones that have the hardest time complying with the law, police will tell you its up to the judge now, not us then cuff you nice and tight and strip every right you have away before you are ever found guilty of any crime. "guilty until proven innocent"

 

Trix

[Flybare]

Big word ..

well i count 4 in your name PB while I am only 2. so we are even.

I dont mind if you pay attention to my more alliterative posts.

Plat Scrabble ??? LOL

[Flybare]

One more thing... Bob and Annie....take it elsewhere, please. Doc Bob, if you are not a lawyer, then you should be more circumspect in your posts. Do you want me to prescribe something stronger?

 

 

Regardless of them, Peanut my friend, the Court being UNANIMOUS leaves No doubt compared to a SPLIT decision.

[Dr. Bob]

Quite true, but is what I am saying incorrect though, you are one. If so let me know why and I'll learn something to protect my patients.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

Folks that are in full, unquestioned compliance don't have problems. In general there is some question of a violation, even a small one innocently made, required to get the arrest warrant. Probable cause must exist, even if we don't agree it is something illegal. This is the difference between only doing things viewed as clearly allowed by the courts vs what we think is allowed. The good news is that even with so called 'innocent errors' the defense is there now thanks to the ruling.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I disagree. There have been many cases where people were in full compliance and were harassed by the system into entering a guilty plea.

 

This irks me more and more .. how dare you equate every arrest with guilt?

 

From your statement above, the only time someone runs into "problems" is if they are in violation of the law.

 

Thank you for your support of this community. edit .. this is sarcasm.

 

What that seems to be is someone posting on this site in support of law enforcement against patients and caregivers. Pretending to be a friend.

Edited June 2, 2012 by peanutbutter

[restlesslegs]

wow just freak'en wow

[GregS]

Completely out of context to the discussion but what you do is your business. I don't take chickens or cases of beer for my professional services. And paying someone with marijuana just strikes me as a bit strange.

 

Excuse me! This was in answer to your own question.

[CaveatLector]

 

What that seems to be is someone posting on this site in support of law enforcement against patients and caregivers. Pretending to be a friend.

 

Really? Is that where we're going? Haven't heard the old, "you must be a LEO" out of ol' PB in some time! Thought maybe he had matured...